Ecocide law: A fresh approach to business ethics

This series of guest blog posts is intended as a dedicated space for the many movements/campaigns around the globe confronting ecosystem destruction to share their stories, narratives and perspectives.

This guest blog was authored by Punya Bhargava, an advocate and founder of the Corporate Social Responsibility firm Huā.

---

As a person of Indian origin who grew up in China and studied in Canada, my exposure to diversity and alternative thought shaped my worldview into what it is today. I recognise that I must use whatever resources, privilege and tools I have at my disposal to bring the voices of disproportionately marginalised members of society to the forefront of policy and corporate ethics structures. 

That is why I took the leap of beginning my own corporate social responsibility (CSR) firm, Huā, at a young age. My motivation emanated from the defining issue of our generation - the need to urgently confront the triple planetary crises we are facing: climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. But, to a large extent, fiduciary responsibility - the obligation that businesses possess towards their shareholders - still trumps their CSR/ESG policies. 

An example of a scenario that companies face daily might look like this: a mining company in Australia faces a choice between safe disposal of the tailings (waste product) from its gold mines, or doing nothing and allowing its release into the local environment. Without safe disposal, the mine tailings, including substances like arsenic, mercury and cyanide, would be released into local waterways and build up over years, wreaking severe havoc on ecosystems and potentially poisoning the water supply for local communities. But safe disposal is costly and eats into the company’s profit margin. 

‘Gold mine, Western Australia. Credit: Chris Fithall/ Flickr Creative Commons.’

Would the company’s CSR policy, which promises to safeguard the environment and support local communities, persuade the company’s top decision-makers to make the responsible choice? In the vast majority of cases, the answer is no. Corporate shareholders and in turn the decision-makers who act on their behalf, hold a legal status called limited liability, meaning that individuals are shielded from individual accountability, including personal financial losses. The company’s fiduciary duty to shareholders is therefore the prime consideration. If the responsible choice costs more, the financial incentive trumps the ethical one. 

But what if a new decision-making factor was introduced into the equation, one that created individual liability for those at the top of the decision-making chain?

Ecocide legislation makes the most grievous harms against nature a criminal offence, meaning that the controlling minds in corporations or governments can be held legally accountable. 

Ecocide law will allow businesses that pursue sustainable practices to flourish by levelling the playing field for them. Right now, without accountability for environmental harms, businesses perversely receive financial rewards for decisions that lead to mass environmental damage. In contrast, ecocide law will rebalance the scales in favour of sustainable practices by thoroughly deterring these practices through the prospect of individual accountability.

The potential of ecocide law is not just evident to me, however, nor just to a small group of supporters. The ecocide movement is rapidly expanding and entering the mainstream. In the past year alone, a domestic law of ecocide was passed in Belgium and the European Parliament voted through a revised Environmental Crime Directive, criminalising cases that can be ‘comparable to ecocide’. Additionally, ecocide bills have been proposed in the Netherlands, Brazil, Peru and Italy. Most crucially, three Pacific Island states, led by the Republic of Vanuatu, have now submitted a formal proposal for a crime of ecocide to the International Criminal Court (ICC), meaning that the issue is firmly on the agenda of all ICC member states.

The CSR/ESG field is only as strong as the moral and legal red lines that society puts in place. Without criminalising mass environmental damage we not only allow it to go unpunished, we send a message that it is morally acceptable. There are no more excuses, there is no more room for brainwashing, greenwashing and for the politics of distraction. It is essential that we work together and raise our voices, wherever we have the opportunity, and call for a standalone international crime of ecocide.

What could ecocide law do for the ocean?

This series of guest blog posts is intended as a dedicated space for the many movements/campaigns around the globe confronting ecosystem destruction to share their stories, narratives and perspectives.

This guest blog was written by Deborah Rowan Wright, an ocean conservation policy expert and author of ‘Future Sea: How to Rescue and Protect the World’s Oceans’.

The global ocean is our greatest ally in the face of the climate crisis, soaking up billions of tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, producing over half of the Earth’s oxygen and absorbing excess heat trapped by greenhouse gas emissions, keeping the planet cooler. Billions of people rely on the ocean to provide a potentially continual supply of food and employment from fishing and related trades. And most remarkable, it is home to an unimaginable wealth and diversity of life, with some estimates surpassing ten million marine species. 

No matter where you are or what you are, the ocean makes all life possible. But it faces serious human-caused threats from chemical and plastic pollution, mining, dredging, oil extraction, industrial fishing, habitat destruction and CO2 emissions, which are making seas warmer and more acidic.

So where does our current approach to marine protection fall short and how could ecocide law help fill the gaps?

Marine Protected Areas – The ocean’s champion?

View fullsize

Sargassum frogfish in mangroves, Lac Bay, Bonaire. Lorenzo Mittiga/ Ocean Image Bank.

The marine conservation strategy favoured by many coastal states is to designate more marine protected areas. Over the years, the protection target has been steadily rising and an international alliance of scientists, journalists, activists, conservation NGOs and some governments is now calling for 30 percent of the global ocean to be kept safe within a global network of protected areas by 2030 (30 x 30).

But there are drawbacks and incongruities in creating marine protected areas to tackle the troubles at sea and three stand out in particular.

Firstly, although it is important to recognise how beneficial 30 percent protection can be, over-extractive, cruel and destructive practices will be able to continue beyond the boundaries of every protected area – in the far greater part of the ocean. Creating marine protected areas is a strategy that accommodates the ocean’s destroyers and even facilitates them.

For example, although it’s difficult to believe, harmful activities like dredging and bottom trawling are still permitted in many alleged ‘protected areas’, which makes them a mockery of marine conservation policy. It leads us to believe that governments are tackling the ocean problem and that we can rest easy, when in fact their policies are perpetuating the harm.

A more effective and more logical solution would be to create ‘marine commercial areas’, instead of marine protected areas – places where industries such as fishing and mining are carefully controlled to ensure they operate responsibly, leaving the rest of the ocean out-of-bounds to exploitation and able to replenish and recover.

Secondly, marine protected areas are a flawed model because water and marine life move constantly. They are unpredictable and mostly unseen. Applying land-bound thinking to the sea as a conservation strategy has limited success. The plastic waste and pollutants we want to keep out of a protected area or the wildlife we want to keep in, pay no attention to boundaries drawn on a map.

Nor do we really know what goes on under the water. With an incomplete understanding of marine ecosystems, it’s often unclear where best to designate a protected area. For instance, the life stages of many species occur in different locations. An example is the Caribbean Spiny Lobster, which lives in various habitats during its life, including mangroves, reefs, and the open ocean. Other animals, like Leatherback Turtles and Manta Rays, migrate huge distances to feed and breed, travelling far beyond the safety of a protected area.

View fullsize

Leatherback sea turtle, Coral Bay, Ningaloo Reef, Western Australia. Emelie Ledwidge/ Ocean Image Bank

Thirdly, we already have international legal protection for the whole global ocean and marine life – both within coastal states’ Exclusive Economic Zones and on the high seas. Several conservation agreements are in place, including the Convention on Biodiversity; the UN World Charter for Nature; the UNFCCC; the International Whaling Commission; the Antarctic Treaty; and most notably, since 1994, the United Nations Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) –  which is legally binding. UNCLOS obliges states to protect and preserve the marine environment, outlaw over-exploitation, and provide special protection to the most fragile and endangered marine ecosystems.

You may be wondering why the ocean is facing an ecological crisis if we have the law to protect it. The answer is that almost all the participating countries disregard the conservation elements of the Law of the Sea and haven’t implemented or enforced them. This is despite the existence of readily available technologies and expertise to enforce the law across the globe, even in the remotest seas.

What can we do differently?

In 2009, when I was working on the campaign to have more marine protected areas around the UK, it was clear that making a few pockets of ‘safe’ water could never effectively protect British seas and their wildlife. This was tokenism, designed to maintain the status quo. Since then, I’ve talked to many fellow campaigners and published policy proposals (the first in 2010), written articles and a book, wanting to convince NGOs, journalists and scientists that we should aim for and expect the whole ocean to be free from harmful over-extractive industries, and not just parts of it. 

At an event recently, I was asked, ‘What can we do to protect the ocean better than we’re doing now?’ ‘So many things’, I thought, but here are my top three.

1. Use the Law.

For thirty years we’ve had the law to protect the ocean from over-exploitation, damage and pollution – so let’s use it. The conservation community can unite to pressure governments to implement and enforce the marine protection obligations of the Law of the Sea.

Well-managed protected areas can be seen, not as a panacea, but a stepping-stone fix on the way to a much bolder, longer-term goal of 100 percent ocean protection. People will still be able to fish waters, ship cargo across them, and take minerals and oil from beneath the seabed, but only in judicious, responsible ways. 

2. Educate and enlighten to encourage a cultural shift in favour of nature

Sharing knowledge and promoting understanding about the incredible wealth and diversity of marine life, how the ocean sustains us, and what we can do to help protect it will encourage people to value the ocean and to care. And when we care about something we look after it.

The conservation community can urge educational authorities to include ocean studies in school curricula, from primary level through to higher education. It can also ramp up ocean awareness-raising campaigns to win over the wider public, using the power of the media. 

The Rights of Nature, which are granted to protect rivers, forests,wetlands and lakes, for example, can fast-track such a change in people’s hearts and minds by obliging citizens to have greater respect for wild places and their wildlife. Formalising a Universal Declaration of Ocean Rights will give the ocean a metaphorical voice, bolstering its position at the negotiation table and highlighting the importance of maintaining and restoring its health and vibrance.

3. Make ecocide an international crime

Destructive and excessive fishing, marine plastic and chemical pollution, deep sea mining in biodiversity-rich areas, most marine fish-farming, and detrimental coastal development happen as a result of individuals, or groups of individuals in positions of power making irresponsible decisions, often in full knowledge of the damage their actions cause. 

When ecocide, the mass destruction of nature, is made an international crime, those high-level decision-makers, whether they are in government, industry or the financial sector, could be made criminally accountable. Ecocide law will enable them to be charged and sentenced if found guilty.

Let's say a fisheries minister sets catch limits for several commercial-value fish species that are far above the scientific advice they are given, because the minister bowed to pressure from the fishing industry to keep quotas high. As a result, those fish populations plummet, and many other forms of dependent marine life, including seabirds, mammals, crustaceans and other types of fish are left without sufficient food.

A few people in positions of authority created a completely avoidable ecological breakdown in the sea. If ecocide law were in place, the fisheries minister and the CEOs and senior managers of the fishing corporations could potentially be prosecuted. And, even if they were not found guilty, the possibility of prosecution and a custodial sentence alone would be enough to make other decision-makers think twice about continuing with nature-wrecking policies and practices.

There is a way to go before the mass destruction of nature is outlawed at an international level, but with a formal proposal to criminalise ecocide now having been submitted to the International Criminal Court by Vanuatu, Fiji and Samoa, ecocide law is firmly on the court’s agenda. For the ocean, ecocide law can be a powerful tool to help safeguard the marine world from further harm and enable it to recover from decades of damage and over-exploitation.  

You can join the growing global movement to make ecocide an international crime by endorsing our Ocean Open Letter.

The promise of ecocide law, from boardroom to courtroom

This series of guest blog posts is intended as a dedicated space for the many movements/campaigns around the globe confronting ecosystem destruction to share their stories, narratives and perspectives.

This article was written by Monica Lennon, Scottish Labour MSP, and journalist and author Judith Schwartz.

---

Every day, decisions are made worldwide that generate substantial profits but cause severe environmental harm. This degradation affects everyone, including the decision-makers themselves. Business is not immune to externalities: climate change and ecosystem collapse are disrupting operations and driving up costs, pushing economies to the brink.

It is a conundrum: whilst the majority of people and organisations do not set out to destroy nature, existing regulatory frameworks provide few mechanisms for meaningful protection. Indeed, our market-based economies evolved under the assumption that natural resources were infinite. The exploitation of the natural world continues because we lack both the means and the incentive to stop it.

Consider a paper company aiming to reduce costs by sourcing wood from untouched tropical forest in Indonesia. Despite the Environmental, Social, and Governance Department’s objections on grounds including potential social and environmental impacts of habitat loss, depletion of local food sources and air pollution from machinery and vehicle dust, the project goes ahead.

“Rainforest in West Java, Indonesia. Credit: The Center for International Forestry Research and World Agroforestry

Similarly, picture a company supplying cobalt and lithium for electric vehicle batteries. To bolster supplies amid limited global stocks of these minerals, the firm seeks licences for deep sea exploration in the western Pacific, disregarding potentially irreversible and widespread damage to the marine environment.

In each case the balance sheet took precedence. So how can we engineer the bottom line in order that threats to nature are not just brushed aside?

A powerful deterrent is needed, a way to prevent the controlling minds in organisations — who are often driven by the prospect of short-term financial gain or power — from making decisions that result in significant environmental harm. Under ‘business as usual’ practices, it is cheaper to harm nature — and ultimately humankind — than it is to protect it.

This is where ecocide law comes in. Defined by an expert panel of top legal minds in 2021, the word ecocide means “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.”

As a crime, ecocide establishes individual criminal liability for major acts of environmental destruction. This means that anyone, from corporate directors to heads of state, could be found guilty and face imprisonment. The fundamental premise of ecocide law is to introduce a critical factor in decision-making at the highest levels: deterrence against the most severe environmental harms. Whereas the status quo favours profit over nature, ecocide law protects nature above all else.

Ecocide law will also be an important mechanism for the safe introduction of new technologies. For instance, the prospect of deep-sea mining for so-called ‘transition minerals’ puts marine systems in peril, despite its role in ‘greening’ the global economy. Ecocide law also supports climate change mitigation efforts by impeding the destruction of the world’s carbon sinks: our oceans, soils and forests. Because healthy ecosystems play a pivotal role in regulating the climate, maintaining their integrity is crucial for climate resilience.

Unlike existing regulatory approaches that struggle to keep pace with new emerging practices and technologies, often resulting in fragmented and delayed protection, ecocide law provides a single, universal standard — a level of harm beyond which it is no longer morally or legally acceptable to act. Ecocide law focuses on the anticipated environmental impact rather than the actions themselves, making it proactive rather than retroactive.

Ecocide legislation is passed in Belgium.

The movement to designate ecocide an international crime under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court is spearheaded by Stop Ecocide International. During 2024, Belgium has introduced a domestic crime of ecocide, and the European Union introduced qualified offences that can be “comparable to ecocide” in its newly revised Environmental Crime Directive — a testament to the impact of this movement. EU member states are now required to incorporate the new law into their national legal frameworks within two years.

Scotland — alongside Peru, Brazil, the Netherlands, Italy, and Mexico — now has the opportunity to become one of the first countries in the world to officially recognize ecocide as a crime. Already part of this historic movement, Scotland is following in the footsteps of nations like Belgium and Ukraine, who have been tireless advocates of anti-ecocide laws. A public consultation for the Ecocide (Prevention) (Scotland) Bill went live in November 2023 and received thousands of supportive responses, highlighting the broad coalition backing this cause. The hope is to introduce the formal proposal in the Scottish Parliament before the end of 2024.

At the international level, Volker Türk, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and Secretary General Antonio Guterres have unequivocally supported the criminalization of ecocide. As the International Criminal Court seeks to strengthen accountability for environmental offences, the court’s deputy prosecutor recently alluded to the need for international criminal law to meaningfully engage with the planetary crisis, to avoid it becoming obsolete. Inclusion of a crime of ecocide would help adapt the Rome Statute for the modern world.

By creating a powerful incentive to prioritise nature over short-term gain, the recognition of ecocide as a crime has the potential to transform the way in which business is conducted. Holding decision-makers accountable for the most extreme forms of environmental harm can spark a market shift toward favouring stewardship of our natural world.

Ecocide law not only addresses the unsustainable nature of 21st century capitalism, but also moves toward a future where business and nature need not be at odds. This paradigm shift is more than an aspiration — it is a realistic and necessary step toward ensuring long-term prosperity and wellbeing for our planet and future generations.

Ecocide law: a deterrent for ocean plastics

This series of guest blog posts is intended as a dedicated space for the many movements/campaigns around the globe confronting ecosystem destruction to share their stories, narratives and perspectives.

This guest blog was co-written by Antoinette Vermilye, the Co-Founder of the marine conservation organisation the Gallifrey Foundation.

---

Moments of animal suffering - a whale mother grieving her dead calf in Blue Planet II, the agonising deaths of albatross chicks ingesting small plastics in Chris Jordan’s Albatross - have brought the impact of plastics in the ocean to the centre stage. However, many people are unsure about how to bring about real change for such an overwhelming problem. 

At the Gallifrey Foundation, we believe that ecocide law can make a real difference. Although the connection is not immediately clear to people, plastics and ecocide law are intimately linked. Indeed, the buildup of plastics and associated chemicals in our ocean connects to ecocide law in myriad ways. This opens up opportunities for accountability and for a potential respite from the onslaught of plastic pollution. Here, I explain the ecocidal impacts of marine plastics, which also extend beyond the ocean to life on land and tragically to human health too, and I set out the ways in which an international crime of ecocide could prevent the proliferation of marine plastics.

‘Continuous microdrip exposure’ 

Most people don’t know that plastics require the addition of plasticisers and chemical additives. These chemicals have been revealed to have long-term, negative effects on humans and the environment. This is because these plastic chemicals imitate our hormones, hormones which are crucial, for example, switching on at very specific key developmental stages in human life – pregnancy, puberty, and menopause. Continuous micro-drip exposure via ingestion, inhalation, and touch is disrupting that finely calibrated system. 

While this is concerning for humans, we are witnessing similar effects from plastics and endocrine disrupting chemicals on the developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune health of creatures worldwide. Thus, a silent ecocide, which has been taking place over decades, is affecting reproductivity in both marine and non-marine organisms gradually, unpicking a finely designed web of ecosystem services that support our biosphere and lives.

Downstream impacts of plastic

The ocean ecosystem is delicate and finely calibrated, and it is being disrupted as plastics both absorb and release chemicals and harmful toxins. As plastics break up into smaller and smaller pieces, they release cocktails of toxic compounds into the water. Plastics are also an attractant as they tend to positively ‘host’ or adsorb persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances. These include heavy metals, e-coli and chemicals such as dioxins and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), all of which tend to not dissolve in water, last for decades and, as they tend to concentrate near the surface of the ocean, easily attach to plastic. 

From large pieces of plastics to the plastic snow that has infected the water columns from top to seabed, it is impossible for marine creatures not to ‘breathe’ in plastics and their toxic companions. Virtually all ecosystems and inhabitants have been affected by, and are suffering the effects of, plastic. 

With a garbage truck of plastic entering the ocean each minute and less than 9% of plastic ever recycled, we are constantly adding even more toxic plastic to the ocean. This is affecting the most abundant of creatures – marine plankton – which act as the planet’s lungs, producing 50 per cent of the planet’s oxygen. The marine life that relies on it for sustenance, will also be lost, and in turn a significant portion of the food supply for people across the world.

How ecocide law would protect our ocean 

Alongside current negotiations for the Global Plastics Treaty, there is also global momentum building around securing an international crime of ecocide under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. The benefits that the criminalisation of ecocide could present for the problem of ocean plastic pollution demonstrate why it is gaining such traction. 

Crucially, ecocide law would fundamentally shift the current decision-making process surrounding major plastic production. This is because corporate directors, who are often shielded from accountability by the limited liability of corporations, would be at risk of serving jail terms due to the criminal nature of ecocide law. They would therefore be incentivised to avoid making decisions that cause severe plastic pollution. 

Additionally, ecocide law would serve as a powerful deterrent against policymakers who permit severe plastic pollution facilitated by lax regulations or inadequate enforcement. Relatedly, criminalising ecocide would enhance a potential Global Plastics Treaty. Although multilateral environmental agreements are essential, without the inclusion of criminal penalties for decision makers, they fall short in ensuring full accountability and prevention.

It is also important to consider how ecocide law would engender a more fundamental shift in the business sector. By introducing criminal liability for environmental harm, ecocide law would reward sustainable businesses and sustainable practices and therefore incentivise other businesses to switch to better practices, rather than engaging in a race to the bottom. The proliferation of sustainable business would undoubtedly lead to greater respect for our ocean in general, as well as ushering in a reduction in polluting practices, including unchecked plastic production.

Moreover, an international law of ecocide would strengthen and help to close the accountability gap left by national environmental regulation, which does not have jurisdiction over the High Seas and is compromised by the porousness of sea boundaries. As a world court, the International Criminal Court is the natural home for a law that would safeguard our ocean.

Conclusion

The Gallifrey Foundation has joined the growing list of organisations calling for ecocide to be added to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as a fifth, standalone crime alongside major crimes like genocide. It is also championing the Ocean for Ecocide Law Network, a group of organisations and individuals who believe that ecocide law is a vital tool in the protection of marine life.

The Gallifrey Foundation is striving for the conservation of our ocean and its fragile ecosystems, but it recognises that without a robust system of legal accountability, work will focus on cleanup rather than prevention. Gallifrey believes that ecocide law can bring about fundamental change by deterring decisionmakers from producing vast quantities of plastic and by rebalancing the scales in favour of sustainable business practices, promoting the use of sustainable materials.

Please join the call for an international crime of ecocide by adding your name to our Ocean for Ecocide Law Network today.

Latin America shows why ecocide must be an international crime

This series of guest blog posts is intended as a dedicated space for the many movements/campaigns around the globe confronting ecosystem destruction to share their stories, narratives and perspectives.

This blog was written by Rodrigo Lledó, a Chilean human rights lawyer and the Americas Director at Stop Ecocide International.

---

Before leaving power in 1990, Chilean general and dictator Augusto Pinochet created a legal framework that guaranteed him absolute impunity. It didn’t work. He was arrested on charges of genocide and terrorism in London in 1998 by order of the Spanish justice system and, upon his return to Chile, finally had to face justice.

Years later, I had the opportunity to lead a team of public lawyers trying nearly 900 cases of crimes against humanity during the Chilean dictatorship. Though Pinochet was already dead, his accomplices had to be duly judged. But decades after his rule, human rights continue to be routinely violated in Latin America, often for defending the environment.

Almost 90% of the world's environment-related killings occur in the region, according to Global Witness, an international organisation that tracks human rights and environmental abuses. A fifth of these incidents – which are only those that are reported, the true number is likely much higher – happen in the Amazon, which spans parts of Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Suriname and Venezuela.

Those reporting on environmental threats in the region also face significant danger. Many will remember the murder of Bruno Pereira, Brazil’s leading expert on isolated and recently contacted indigenous peoples, and British journalist Dom Phillips. The experienced pair were killed whilst travelling by boat through the Javari Valley near Brazil's border with Peru, a region plagued by illegal mining, logging, fishing, and drug trafficking, while researching Phillips’ book on conservation efforts in the Amazon.

Those of us who lived under a dictatorship know that even when the circumstances are bleak, we must work to regain hope and cautious optimism. It was in this spirit that I and more than 700 youth activists, Indigenous environmental defenders and representatives of state parties and civil society organisations met last month in Santiago, Chile, for the third annual meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP3) to the Escazú Agreement.

Sixteen countries have so far ratified the agreement, which aims to safeguard the right to a healthy environment for current and future generations and is the first in the world to include explicit provisions to protect human rights defenders on environmental matters.

Many more countries must now follow suit. Amnesty International rightly points out that some of the states yet to sign up – including Brazil, Colombia and Guatemala – are those where armed conflict, land disputes and extractive industries pose the most danger to environmental defenders.

The Escazú Agreement’s purpose is not to introduce new rights, but to ensure the protection of existing rights – particularly the right to access information and justice on environmental matters, as well as a right to public participation in the environmental decision-making process. Its goal is simple: establish systems to support every effort to move away from the lack of accountability that has historically prevailed in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Progress was made in Santiago. COP3 participants agreed on a new Action Plan that outlines strategies for states to protect environmental defenders’ rights, as well as measures to prevent and penalise any attempts to harm them. These include the establishment of free legal assistance for environmental defenders, and training for judges and prosecutors.

Encouraging state engagement with the Escazú Agreement means we must now seriously consider introducing comparable treaties in other resource-rich regions with a colonial history of unequal exchange, widespread environmental degradation, and violent repression against those advocating for human rights and the protection of nature. These include large parts of Africa and many Pacific island nations, which are also at the heart of the rush for the ‘transition minerals’ needed for renewable energy, such as cobalt and lithium.

The drive for lithium, used in modern battery technology for electric cars and other energy systems, has already seen new open-cast mining projects in Zimbabwe, Namibia and Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Lithium demand could well grow tenfold by 2050 under the net-zero plan of the International Energy Agency, an autonomous intergovernmental organisation.

Batteries are also partly behind the move towards deep seabed mining for nickel, cobalt, manganese and graphite, in addition to the so-called ‘rare-earth elements’ needed for a range of technologies, including the engines of wind turbines. One area of particular interest is the Clarion-Clipperton Zone in the Pacific Ocean, which hosts exploration contracts for 17 deep-sea mining contractors, covering an area of approximately one million square kilometers.

These activities must be carried out in a way that is safe for both the natural world and the often vulnerable populations residing in these resource-rich areas. Such communities must be able to safely defend their right to a healthy environment, along with their own well-being and livelihoods – and the best way to achieve this would be to criminalise ecocide.

Ecocide refers to the most severe forms of environmental destruction, such as vast oil spills, the clear-cutting of primary rainforests or the pollution of entire river systems. I and other members of an independent expert panel convened by the Stop Ecocide Foundation painstakingly crafted the following definition in 2021: “Unlawful or wanton acts committed with the knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment.”

Legislation to combat ecocide encourages corporate decision-makers and policymakers at the very highest level to take regulatory frameworks much more seriously. If they fail to fulfil their environmental obligations and risk committing ecocide, they could fall under the purview of criminal law, risking not only their personal reputation and freedom but also corporate reputation and share value.

The ecocide law conversation is growing louder by the day, which is particularly evident in recent and ongoing conflicts where environmental damage has been deliberately employed as a weapon. Russia’s destruction of the Kakhovka Dam, for example, was described by senior Ukrainian officials including President Zelensky as an act of ecocide.

One of the most significant political developments to date reached its legislative conclusion at the end of March, when the European Council formally adopted a revised Environmental Crimes Directive that includes a provision to criminalise cases ‘comparable to ecocide’. The decision will strengthen Europe’s environmental protection efforts and has been felt around the globe.

A growing list of states have also recently taken concrete steps towards criminalising ecocide, including the Netherlands, Scotland, Mexico, Brazil, United Kingdom, Italy and Spain. Chile amended its criminal code last August to include new economic and environmental crimes that incorporate offences comparable to ecocide. Remarkably, in March this year, Belgium’s Federal Parliament voted in favour of a new penal code that recognised the crime of ecocide.

The end goal of the ecocide law movement is to establish ecocide as the fifth crime against peace within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. There, it will sit alongside those crimes humanity considers most heinous: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.

When Pinochet was arrested in the UK in 1998, one of the most notable aspects of the case was that a Spanish judge had the authority to order his arrest for crimes committed in Chile, affecting mainly Chilean victims. Legal authority over a crime is typically based on a link, often geographic, between the prosecuting state and the crime committed – but as one prominent lawyer noted at the time, “in the case of crimes against humanity, that link may be found in the simple fact that we are all human beings”.

This is the principle of ‘universal jurisdiction’ – the notion that every state has an interest in prosecuting perpetrators of specific crimes of international concern, regardless of where they took place. The fundamental rationale is to ensure there are no ‘safe havens’ for those responsible for the gravest crimes, a category that should undoubtedly include ecocide.

Ecocide law offers legal protection and recourse against perpetrators of the very worst environmental harms. This legal protection enhances the safety of environmental defenders and strengthens their ability to advocate for environmental justice without fear of reprisal.

The Escazú Agreement complements this law by providing environmental defenders with the tools needed to advocate for the protection of their rights and the environment. Together, these mechanisms contribute to a legal framework that protects the environment, and its defenders, and draws a moral red line beyond which actions that damage the planet are deemed unacceptable – fundamentally shifting the culture surrounding environmental harm.

Witnessing Ecocide: Niger Delta

This series of guest blog posts is intended as a dedicated space for the many movements/campaigns around the globe confronting ecosystem destruction to share their stories, narratives and perspectives.

This blog was written by Nigerian climate advocate, Perfect Johndick.

---

In my territory, all I hear is nature’s silent scream begging for justice. It tells me that for decades, there has been so much impunity for the crimes against it. Listen closely, and you will hear the cries of the Niger Delta’s inhabitants. Birds whose plumage is caked with oil are struggling to take flight. Fishermen, whose nets come up empty, and who have had their livelihoods stolen by the greed of those who seek profit at any cost. 

The Niger Delta, where I grew up, was once home to a thriving community among mangroves and creeks, large forests, and waterways. A place where catfish met oysters in a symphony of nature's beauty. But this beautiful habitat has been a victim of ecocide. Criminalising that harm is the only way to secure accountability for this injustice and halt the destruction of the Delta. It must be done urgently.

The poisoning of the Niger Delta

As a child, I witnessed fishermen in my town, Okrika, return home with nets full of mullets and mudskippers. Children returned with baskets of periwinkles from the mangroves and mothers made soup from the river’s resources. I heard of the Omoku people, who planted cassava in large quantities, made garri, and produced oil from palm fruit. We breathed pristine air and the rivers and mangrove forests provided fertile grounds for fishing activities, which sustained both livelihoods and cultural traditions. Clean rivers and aquifers supported agricultural activities and provided drinking water for communities.

This was before the poisoning of the Niger Delta, a tragedy that began on 15 January, 1965, with the discovery of an oil well in the community of Oloibiri. Oil, once considered a blessing, turned out to be a curse. Men came with machines and promises, taking massive swaths of land for oil firms, drilling and extracting erratically. Today, the Niger Delta is one vast oil field with over 1,400 wells, 275 flow stations, over 7,000 kilometres of oil and gas pipelines, and over 120 gas-flaring furnaces.

For decades, oil extraction promised economic prosperity but delivered environmental ruin. Spills have been common, gas flare lamps release fumes relentlessly, and the once fertile land has been poisoned. The creeks are choked with oil, suffocating the life within. Oil extraction has rendered monkeys and snakes homeless, destroyed trees, and killed periwinkles. It has contaminated and destroyed ecosystems, resulting in the loss of plant and animal species and disrupting ecological balance. The loss of biodiversity has been catastrophic.

More broadly, oil and gas extraction in the Niger Delta has added to the disaster of global warming by increasing carbon emissions and reducing carbon sequestration capacity. This is exacerbated by the large quantities of greenhouse gases released during the practice of gas flaring. Since the 1980s, its practice has been criminalised in Nigeria, but it has only grown more widespread. Since 1979, Nigeria's government has committed to more than eight promises and deadlines to end gas flaring, which they have failed to keep. 

The human impact

Although it was clear by the early 1990s that oil pollution in the Niger Delta had destroyed many people's livelihoods and the environment, It was not until 2011 that  strong proof emerged in the form of a UNEP report, which showed just how severely oil pollution has affected people's lives, livelihoods, health, and the environment. In particular, the assessment study showed how pollution had made drinking water sources unsafe, including the presence of 900 times the permitted amount of the cancer-causing chemical benzene. Pollutants like benzene, toluene, and xylene have led to respiratory problems, digestive problems, skin diseases, and cancer. Oil pollution has also resulted in adverse maternal outcomes.

Communities are no longer able to farm due to the degradation of the soil. When people manage to farm, they harvest little, and sometimes prematurely, because they are conscious of impending floods. Most communities in the Niger Delta experience massive floods that force them to emigrate or live an impoverished existence in internally displaced persons camps, exposing them to unclean water, sickness, poor nutrition, and causing them to lose their crops, homes, culture, and lives. 

Sadly, the situation is ongoing. In November 2023, there was an oil spill in Bane Ogoni that remained visible on the river until February 2024, decimating marine life and contaminating the water to the extent that it could not be used for months.

The accountability gap

The culprits responsible for this crime are the oil and gas giants operating in the Delta. They flare gas, create constant oil spills and implement other harmful practices with astounding impunity, taking advantage of weak regulations 

Amid this despair, the major players in the industry have been divesting from the  Niger Delta. Corporations are packing their bags and leaving without accountability or the desperately needed compensation to repair the ecosystems they have wrecked or the vulnerable communities they have long oppressed. But the people of the Delta have refused to accept divestment. Indeed, we stand united, our voices raised in defiance, demanding justice from these corporations and saying “no divestment without restoration".

Ecocide Law: “a sign of hope” for the Niger Delta

The devastation arising from this ecological disaster, and the shocking impunity for the perpetrators, creates a compelling case to incorporate ecocide into international criminal law. Despite the existence of national environmental laws around the world, enforcement is severely limited by a lack of political will and cases brought by civil society have had limited success. This lets companies prioritise profit over protecting the environment. Moreover, international environmental law has limited use given that its goal is not to punish people but to establish principles and frameworks for international cooperation on environmental concerns. 

On the other hand, the concept of ecocide law pertains to the criminalization of significant ecological harm. Integrating ecocide into the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court would help to fill a critical accountability gap by making it illegal to harm the environment on a wide scale, to a severe degree or over a long period. It would hold decision makers accountable, deterring them from committing environmental crimes in the future. It would hold people and businesses accountable for their actions, deterring them from committing environmental crimes in the future. For communities in the Niger Delta, I think that criminalising ecocide would be a sign of hope.

While critics of ecocide have pointed to implementation challenges, the Niger Delta's widespread destruction is a stark reminder of how important it is to act rapidly. Incorporating ecocide into international criminal law is a crucial step towards ensuring environmental responsibility, safeguarding our planet, and safeguarding the health of present and future generations. 

Call to action

Stop Ecocide International is committed to recognising ecocide as a crime and has been advocating for its legal implementation. If their work is successful, future generations may be taught the story of ecocide and its legal punishment as a lesson in the power of cooperation and the importance of earth protection. The stakes are high, because if we fail, we could lose more than just an environment. We could also lose a part of ourselves.

I call on all heads of state and government to support the integration of ecocide into international criminal law. Moreover, I call on civil society, youth, individuals, and everyone else to join in advocating for the criminalisation of ecocide. 

Together, we can make a difference and create a future where environmental protection is both a legal obligation and a fundamental human right.

STOP ECOCIDE.